Streetsblog Los Angeles

Go get 'em. Photo: Wayan Vota/Flickr

As the year draws to a close, the a debate is popping up between LAPD leadership and the Los Angeles Police Protective League over how to handle unlicensed drivers.  Yesterday, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck announced that the City of Los Angeles would allow unlicensed drivers pulled over by the police to call a friend or family member to pick up their car rather than have it be impounded.  Beck explained the decision to the Times:

In an interview Tuesday, Beck amplified his position: “It’s a fairness issue. There is a vast difference between someone driving without a license because they cannot legally be issued one and someone driving after having their license revoked.”

Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Police Protective League, a lobbying body for police officers, contends that such a move while make Los Angeles’ streets less safe, as unlicensed drivers will not lose their car, which of course makes it likely that they will drive again.

The statistics are staggering.  Of the roughly 40,000 fatal car crashes that occur annually in America, 20 percent involve a driver without a valid driver’s license, according to a study conducted for the American Automobile Association. That’s about 8,000 drivers who have either never taken a driver’s safety course or training in America because of restrictions against them doing so or are drivers that are so bad that they’ve managed to lose their drivers license because they’re such bad drivers that the government has revoked their driving privileges.

In the eyes of the law, these two groups are the same.  But in reality, the second group is a danger because of what they have chosen to do with the driving privilege while the first group is denied even a chance for that privilege.

Rules that make it easier for dangerous drivers to continue to drive unsafely make our roads less safe for all users.  That’s a no-brainer.  But laws that prevent undocumented workers from obtaining drivers licenses do the same thing.  By denying these immigrants the opportunity to take part in a licensing program that teaches driver safety doesn’t just punish people based on immigration status, it punishes everyone by not allowing streets to be as safe as possible. Read more…

Leave it to the Brits to create an incredible tool for examining America’s own crisis of traffic fatalities. Behold this somber map, made by ITO World, a UK-based transportation information firm. Each dot on the map is a traffic-related death. The entire eastern United States is blanketed with them.

The purple dots represent vehicle occupants – not necessarily drivers – who were killed. It may look like a lot of purple, and it certainly is, but when you zoom in closer you see a lot of blue dots, for pedestrians, as well as an awful lot of yellow dots, for motorcyclists. The green dots for bicyclists are fewer and farther between, but if you zoom into the cities, you’ll find them. Each dot even lists the year of the crash and the victim’s age and gender.

ITO World got their fatality data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. It appears they’ve captured not just fatalities on highways but on local streets as well.

The World Health Organization reports 12.3 annual traffic deaths per 100,000 inhabitants in the United States. Compare that with 3.85 in Japan and 4.5 in Germany. If the U.S. achieved similar rates, more than 20,000 deaths would be prevented each year.

This map is a useful way of visualizing the terrible consequences of our auto-addicted culture. Beyond that, it can be an indispensable tool for community transportation advocates to show local officials where problem spots are and how their community compares to others.

From childhood, we are constantly being taught the rules of the road. We’ve seen siblings get speeding tickets, heard parents honk at discourteous drivers, and read about tragedies caused by drunk and distracted driving. By the time we are old enough to enroll in a driver’s education course and apply for a driver’s license, we are already familiar with driving laws, safe practices and etiquette.

• 

  Bicycle Rodeos are a great start, but cyclists (and drivers) need continual education for everyone's sake. This rodeo picture from Glendale last May and via the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition

  Unfortunately, most of this experience only teaches us how to use our streets as motorists. Those who roll out of their driveways for the first time on two wheels confront a host of issues they never considered previously:

• How do I turn left at this daunting intersection?
• Why do some motorists try to pass just before stop signs?
• How can I discourage motorists from passing too closely in the same lane?
• And so many more.

The problem is the lack of accessible, informed and comprehensive education regarding the rights and responsibilities of bicyclists. Few of us receive adequate instruction before getting behind the handlebars or the steering wheel and navigating the streets of Los Angeles. Schools rarely offer bicycling courses by certified instructors. Those who teach drivers’ education courses only briefly refer to bicyclists, instead of informing students of bicyclists’equal right to use the road.

To complicate matters, the minimal bicycle education we do receive is often erroneous — especially when it comes from friends and authority figures who lack training and personal experience on a bicycle. Parents, teachers and police officers are wise to teach children to wear helmets, use lights at night, stop at red lights and look “left, right, left” before crossing a street. But counseling a bicyclist to “stay on the sidewalk” or “stay as far to the right as possible” is misguided. Door zones and blind spots are paved with good intentions. Read more…

Thanks to a lousy police report, the cyclists in this crash never got a penny out of their attackers. Would this ordinance have made a difference? Photo: Luis

It’s been almost two years since Councilman Bill Rosendahl first proposed an ordinance to better protect cyclists as vulnerable users of the roadway from harassment from empowered and obnoxious drivers, but now his proposed ordinance will finally get it’s final hearing at City Hall.  The full City Council is expected to hear the ordinance at next Wednesday’s meeting at 10:00 A.M.  The idea was first floated publicly in 2009 but had been discussed behind the scenes for months beforehand.  If passed, the law would be the first of its kind anywhere in America, a fact not lost on safe cycling advocates from around the country.  You can read the ordinance at the LADOT Bike Blog.

But for many cyclists, the ordinance can’t come soon enough.  ”"What kind of city do we want? If we want people to get exercise if we want less pollution and traffic, then we need to provide tools for cyclists to defend against harassment,” writes Don Ward, a Streetsblog contributor and member of the Northridge West Neighborhood Council who is a vocal advocate for safe streets.  Ward himself was the victim of a hit and run crash in 2009 while biking home on May 19, 2009.

Over the years the ordinance has been mocked by the press, misunderstood by other City Council Members and somewhat watered down from the initial idea that it would include a “3 foot passing law,” but the ordinance has slowly but surely moved forward.  Earlier this year a final version of the ordinance was released which created a course of action for cyclists to sue overly aggressive and dangerous drivers in civil (not criminal) court to recover damages caused by their reckless driving.   If passed, penalties for those found in violation of the measure would be three times the physical damages or $1,000, whichever is greater, plus reasonable legal expenses and damages awarded by a jury or judge.

We should also note that the issue of a safe passing distance is being addressed by state legislation, SB 910, that has passed the entire State Senate and several Assembly Committees.

This allows cyclists to make their case if the police are unable, or unwilling, to follow through and make their case for them.  Nobody found guilty of violating this ordinance will got o jail, it empowers victims to go to civil court, not criminal court; but cyclists can press charges at civil court in addition to any criminal charges.  Of perhaps greater importance is the language allowing cyclists to recoup legal costs.  If the only damage is to a bicycle, which may not cost a lot of money, it wasn’t always worth a lawyer’s time to take bike crash cases, even if they were easy wins, because the funds collected might not equal said lawyers fee. Read more…

A new motion introduced by Councilmen Tony Cardenas and Bernard Parks seeks to overturn the recent decision of the Police Commission to end the city’s wildly effective red light traffic camera program.  Their motion is scheduled to be heard at tomorrow morning’s City Council hearing.  The Councilmen claim that they can force the Police Commission to change their ruling, while the Commission claims the Council has no such authority.  It was previously reported that a 2/3 vote of the Council, a full 10 votes, would be needed to over turn the Commission.

Parks, of course, has some history with the LAPD and Police Commission. Photo: Streetgangs.com

Cardenas has been making the rounds in the media reminding people that despite all the “ding-dong the witch is dead” partying, LAPD’s studies of the intersections with red light cameras showed a 62% decline in traffic crashes.  Regardless of any concerns about the politics of the intersection selection or money the city is losing, that is an outstanding record.

Even with two Councilmen on Board, it would still be a political upset if the cameras are maintained.  The Times implied that Parks and Cardenas are pawns of American Traffic Solutions, the company that maintains and profits from the cameras.  Meanwhile, LA Weekly is lionizing the head of the Orwellianly named Safer Streets L.A. who do deserve credit for a well-run campaign to get the unanimous vote from the Police Commission last week.  Safer Streets L.A. argues that the crash-reduction numbers are inflated and misleading. Read more…

Sibelius Park, a housing complex in Copenhagen, has cooperated with the Danish Crime Prevention Council to carefully define private, semiprivate, semipublic and public territories in the complex. Subsequent studies have shown that there is less crime and greater security than in other similar developments. Photos: Jan Gehl

Editor’s note: Streetsblog  is thrilled to launch a three-part series today by renowned Danish architect and livable streets luminary Jan Gehl. The pieces are excerpts are from his book, “Cities for People” published by Island Press. Donate to LA Streetsblog and you’ll qualify to win a copy of the book, courtesy of Island Press. Visit the Island Press website to find many more great titles by the nation’s leading publisher of books on environmental issues.

Feeling safe is crucial if we hope to have people embrace city space. In general, life and people themselves make the city more inviting and safe in terms of both experienced and perceived security.

In this section we deal with the safe city issue with the goal of ensuring good cities by inviting walking, biking and staying. Our discussion will focus on two important sectors where targeted efforts can satisfy the requirement for safety in city space: traffic safety and crime prevention.

Throughout the entire period of car encroachment, cities have tried to remove bicycle traffic from their streets. The risk of accident to pedestrians and bicyclists has been great throughout the rise in car traffic, and the fear of accident even greater.

Many European countries and North America experienced the car invasion early on and have watched city quality deteriorate year by year. There have been numerous counter reactions and an incipient development of new traffic planning principles in response. In other countries whose economies have developed more slowly and modestly, cars have only begun to invade cities more recently. In every case the result is a dramatic worsening of conditions for pedestrians and bicycle traffic.

Read more…

Above is a reaction to the Un-Conference from a UCLA “Bruin for Transit.” See Jeff Wood, from Reconnecting America and the amazing email update “Other Side of the Tracks” react to the conference at a StreetVid on YouTube.

I was lucky enough to spend my weekend in San Francisco at OpenPlans Un-Conference, Transportation Camp West. I should note that OpenPlans remains a strong partner in the daily production of Los Angeles Streetsblog.

At the un-conference, there was a split in the types of discussions presented in the open sessions.  Some were on open data and some high tech issues that were a little over my head.  The others were on some form of transportation wonkery.  You can guess where I spent my time.

For those of you that have never been to an Un-Conference, and I’m already lobbying OpenPlans to bring the conference to the other city with a Streetsblog after programming two in New York and San Francisco, the format is designed to maximize conversation.  For example, instead of a program built around power point presentations and experts talking on their favorite topic, the un-conference doesn’t have a break-out session schedule.  Conference attendees propose session ideas and then they’re assigned a room and time slot based on the quality of their proposal and what else is being proposed.  Often times when I present at a conference, I roll in late, make my presentation, and leave early.  You can’t really do that at an un-conference.  It’s the participants that make the program and the schedule isn’t created until the day begins.

On Sunday morning, I proposed my own topic and was given a chance to lead a group discussion.  No power point.  No panel of experts.  Me and the dozen people that were most interested in “Language Matters: How to Gain Mainstream Usage of Livable Streets Terms and Ideas” sat down and talked.

After about ten minutes, it became apparent that my discussion team didn’t agree with my idea that we have to change people’s language to gain broader acceptance of Livability issues.  Instead, they felt that we need to better frame livability issues in common language.  In other words, rather than try to find ways to make people embrace terms such as “road diet,” “bike boulevard” or “pedestrian friendly streets” we should find terms that are easier to understand and embrace.  That’s why you almost never hear anyone argue against “Safe Routes to Schools,” who would argue against safety for children?

Here again the un-conference format was helpful.  By encouraging discussion instead of presentation, we were able to have a long and interesting discussion about strategy and wordsmithing.  And we would have made Janette Sadik-Khan proud, because the theme we returned to over and over was safety, safety, safety as the idea to wrap every livable issue inside of.

There was one other ideas that I was thinking of for a Streetsblog article. After Saturday’s session and before I decided to have my own session on language.

First, in a session on public-private partnerships and livability, people were asked to describe their perfect livable street.  Interestingly, the handful of Angelenos all talked about making streets that are safe and attractive places to be outside.  But the San Franciscans in the group talked about the same issues and topics such as “access to food” or other features they wanted from the development in the area.

Not exactly ground breaking stuff, but it showed that in a city that is known for being a more Livable place than Los Angeles, their thinking about streets a little differently than a lot of us do in Los Angeles.  But what was more interesting was when they described the road blocks to Livability, they had the same obstacles we face in Los Angeles: NIMBY’s, government and businesses that don’t see the fiscal advantage to complete streets, Drivers that will fight for every inch of street.

So what’s the lesson?  That there might be a point when Livable Streets advocates don’t have to fight for every win, but that time is a long way off in the future.  San Francisco, Portland and New York might be ahead of Los Angeles, but their advocacy community has to fight just as hard to advance causes and play defense as the advocates in Los Angeles.

The South Figueroa Corridor Plan proposes changes for more than just Figueroa Street.

A standing room only audience descended on the Fashion Institute of Design on South Grand Street to listen to a presentation from the embattled Community Redevelopment Agency for a ground breaking and popular proposal to transform the South Figueroa Corridor.  When people discuss Los Angeles’ streets, they usually use terms such as “car-oriented” or “ugly.”  The new South Figueroa, aka My Figueroa, would be a truly beautiful street designed for people to walk, bike wait for transit or just enjoy life outside as well as a way to shuffle cars from one area to another.

The South Figueroa Corridor Project covers three miles of South Figueroa from 41st Street to Seventh Street as well as a half mile of 11st Street between Figueroa and Broadway, a half mile of Martin Luther King (MLK) Boulevard just south of Exposition Park, and a half mile of Bill Robertson Boulevard from into Exposition Park starting at MLK Boulevard.  While there are different proposals being studied for each part of the corridor, Oliver Schultze, from the world-renowned Gehl Architects in Copenhagen, promised that every part of the corridor would see some sort of improvement.

Good.

The project team offered three proposals for different sections of Figueroa, a “good,” “better,” and “best” options.  Whether a segment qualifies for good, better, or best depends on the amount of funding available and the current level of street life in the segment.  The good option consisted of an eight foot separated bike lane traveling the length of the corridor in each direction, an eighteen inch separator, car parking and bus bump outs, and a transit only lane for buses and streetcars.  In addition to creating a safe place for cyclists, removing them from car traffic and the sidewalk, it also created a 22 foot buffer between the sidewalk and the first regular vehicle travel lane.

As Joe Linton noted from the audience, “I love that protected bike lanes are the base proposal.”  Figueroa street would be the first street in Los Angeles to feature protected bike lanes.  In fact, no city in Los Angeles County has these special bike lanes, although Long Beach is adding some as we speak. Read more…

Photo: Devildoc18/flickr

Earlier this year, the City Council ordered city staff to create a list of changes to city and state laws that could help cyclists see justice after crashes.  At the time, City Council Transportation Committee Chair Bill Rosendahl referred to the motion as an anti-harassment ordinance, and hopes ran high that the city could create a three foot passing law, or could somehow further criminalize unsafe and aggressive behavior by drivers.

After the Chief Legislative Analysts office spent six months looking at different routes the city could take, their proposal is to draft legislation that will increase cyclists legal rights after a crash by making it a civil violation of the municipal code to discriminate against a bicyclist by unlawfully assaulting, threatening, or harassing a bicyclist, and create a private cause of action with attorneys’ fees for a violation.

Rosendahl explains the motion:

Cyclists are the most vulnerable users on our roads so we need to do everything we can to protect them. When a motorist feels aggrieved and engages in some type of senseless tit for tat behavior with another motorist it’s never appropriate or safe. But when that same motorist is engaging in that behavior with a cyclist it’s deadly. This proposal is designed to address that. It creates a private cause of action that allows cyclists who are victims of discrimination on the roadway to pursue the matter civilly rather than wait for law enforcement to act.

In plain English, this proposed legislation would give cyclists another legal leg to stand on and help them get legal counsel for civil suits.  Generally, people who sue for a tort in civil court cannot recover attorneys fees, and so unless there are very serious injuries or unless the person suing is wealthy, it is almost impossible to get an attorney to represent you.  By allowing for a recovery of attorneys fees, people might be able to get a lawyer to represent them even if they were only slightly injured, or  did not suffer physical injuries.

Update: Ted Rogers adds that the ordinance would allow cyclists to pursue civil actions against drivers without a police report.  I.E. that witness statements and other evidence would allow them to seek compensation.

Read more…